While developing tests for #12092, I came across a case where making a comment on a single-commit doesn't include the correct diff for the comment. This is because code comment placement occurs between the PR's base and the commit being viewed, but, that diff could be different from the commit's parent to the commit, which is what is being viewed on a single-commit diff.
Similar to #12055, this PR changes code comments to be more precise in their diff generation by providing the backend with both the base commit (`before_commit_id`) and head commit (`after_commit_id`) currently being viewed. As a result, the diffs attached to comments should exactly match the diffs being viewed by the user when the comment was placed.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12107
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- It's quite hard to determine when and why this was added here, my best
guess is that this being the "oldest" subcommand at some point loading
the configuration was not unified. Now it is unified in
`prepareWorkPathAndCustomConf` which is run before any subcommand is
run. It determines the work path, custom path and (custom) config and
then loads the settings by calling `LoadCommonSettings`.
- Between `prepareWorkPathAndCustomConf` being called and
`serveInstalled` being called the `setting.CustomConf` is not changed.
There was a possibility this being necessary for install page ->
installed, but the install code already ensures that the new config is
loaded and used.
- Thus calling to load the settings again here is not necessary. There's
a small possibility some settings loading code was written to only work
after being loaded the second time. That's a bug that needs to be fixed,
because all other subcommands does not load the settings twice and would
see a different view of the settings in that case. I don't fear such
code being present here.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#11024
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12111
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
First round of patches to re-enable some lints from my side.
This PR also refactors the general key fetching code quite a bit due to the way it currently worked
with relying on some values being nil sometimes.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11253
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
With the completion of #12015, when a comment is left on a changed line in a pull request, we track the comment against the line of code with `git blame` and then identify where it currently is in any diff with `git blame --reverse`. However, this strategy only works for the *modified* lines of code -- eg. the `+...` in diffs, and not the `-...` in diffs. The reason is that `git blame --reverse` can't track a line of code's location past the commit that it was removed in.
To permit comments that are left on lines of code that are removed to appear correctly in the UI, a separate approach is required for those comments. This PR performs two major changes, which have been complex to figure out, but are reasonably easy to understand:
- When a comment is placed on a removed line in a PR, perform a `git blame --reverse` from the PR's base to the currently viewed commit, and use this information to record in the comment:
- the **last commit that the line of code existed in** (stored in the `commit_sha` field)
- the **line of code as of that commit** (stored in the `line` field, negative, to indicate that the comment is on a removal).
- the **patch** where the comment was placed (stored in the field `patch`); existing functionality unchanged in this PR
- When viewing any diff in the PR, for each comment on a removal, perform a diff from the `commit_sha` (last commit that the line of code existed in) to the current commit being viewed, and verify that within that diff the left-hand-side line removal still exists at the same line of code in the diff, by comparing the current diff with the stored patch.
- If present, place the commit in the UI at the line number.
- If the line of code no longer exists in the diff at that point (for example, it was removed, commented upon, and then re-added in a later commit), then the comment is considered outdated and isn't displayed.
The algorithm used for marking a comment as "outdated" is also updated to use this approach.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12092
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12082 by reverting commit dd968f147d.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12088
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
Co-committed-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
Currently, forgejo does not support syntax highlighting code-blocks that have comma separated attributes after the language. This is a pattern sometimes seen in Rust code blocks, with tests like this:
\`\`\`rust
#[test]
fn run_this_test() { /* ... */ }
\`\`\`
\`\`\`rust,ignore
#[test]
fn skip_this_test() { /* ... */ }
\`\`\`
Currently, forgejo only does syntax highlighting in the first case:
```rust
#[test]
fn run_this_test() { /* ... */ }
```
```rust,ignore
#[test]
fn skip_this_test() { /* ... */ }
```
An example of this causing problems can be seen in this commit (5be9c5b7d2) causing the following issue (https://codeberg.org/zesterer/ariadne/issues/188).
This PR fixes fixes the second case not getting proper syntax highlighting.
Co-authored-by: TurtleArmy <44322335+TurtleArmyMc@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12056
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμίλια Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: TurtleArmy <turtlearmy@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: TurtleArmy <turtlearmy@noreply.codeberg.org>
This is hopefully the final part of PR #4767, rebased and squashed.
More thorough federation tests are at https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1276 but the mock has been extended to hopefully cover a good chunk as well.
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Co-authored-by: zam <mirco.zachmann@meissa.de>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10380
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
When performing `git blame` to identify the commit that a line of code came from, limit the blame to the commit that is currently being viewed in the UI. Before this change, the blame always occurred on the current head of the PR, causing these problems:
- When you click ➕ to load the comment form, the form that is dynamically loaded would have it's commit field pulled from the current PR head. That may not actually reflect the code that you were viewing at the time you authored the comment -- it could be a newer commit that occurred by the author while you were reviewing.
- When viewing a specific commit within a PR and leaving a comment, the blame would occur from the head -- if the file was changed in a later commit and the line-of-code moved up or down, the comment would be misplaced.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055): <!--number 12055 --><!--line 0 --><!--description d2hlbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgaW4gUFJzLCBtYWtlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSB2aXNpYmxlIGNvZGUncyBjb21taXQ=-->when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Currently when a commit is pushed to a branch, code comments are marked as Outdated if a `git blame` on the current commit's code returns the same commit as the `git blame` did when the comment was originally created. This implementation doesn't make sense:
- It doesn't handle the case correctly where the same line of code exists unaltered in the new commit, but it has been relocated (eg. new lines entered or removed above the location).
- It falsely keeps the commit valid if the line of code that the comment was made upon has been removed, if, coincidentally, the line of code that now exists at the commit came from the same source commit. For example, if the line of code that the comment was on was deleted, but the next line of code came from the same commit, the comment will be kept as valid.
This PR uses the logic introduced in #12015, using a `git blame --reverse` -- the commit & line that was identified as having the comment on it is reversed, and if it still exists in the new head, then the comment is considered valid. Otherwise it is marked as outdated.
Automated tests are added primarily by revising the automated tests in #12015 -- a comment in an existing test case was marked as outdated, even though it shouldn't have been.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054): <!--number 12054 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFyayBjb2RlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFzIE91dGRhdGVkIGJhc2VkIHVwb24gbGluZS1vZi1jb2RlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBpbiBjdXJyZW50IFBSIGNvbW1pdA==-->mark code comments as Outdated based upon line-of-code existence in current PR commit<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
When a review comment is placed on a PR in Forgejo, Forgejo performs a `git blame` to identify which commit originated the line, and records that commit and line number in the comment's database record. Later when the review is viewed, Forgejo currently makes no effort to place that comment in the correct *current* location, which may vary -- for example, if a PR had two commits and the comment was made on a line in the first commit, but the second commit changes line numbers in that file, the comment will appear in the incorrect location.
This PR adds the usage of `git blame --reverse` to calculate the correct location to display the comment in the current view (whether reviewing the PR commit-by-commit, or "Files changed"). It certainly does not fix all problems with comment placement (see comments).
Another major addition in this PR is a test harness for making relatively complex PRs and reviewing the diffs on the per-commit view and PR-diff views.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015): <!--number 12015 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVsb2NhdGUgUFIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIHVzaW5nIGBnaXQgYmxhbWUgLS1yZXZlcnNlYCwgaW1wcm92aW5nIGNvbW1lbnQgcGxhY2VtZW50-->relocate PR review comments using `git blame --reverse`, improving comment placement<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|
| [data.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo](https://forgejo.org) ([source](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo)) | patch | `11.0.11` → `11.0.12` |
---
### Release Notes
<details>
<summary>forgejo/forgejo (data.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo)</summary>
### [`v11.0.12`](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/releases/tag/v11.0.12)
[Compare Source](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/compare/v11.0.11...v11.0.12)
See <https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/11.0.12.md>
</details>
---
### Configuration
📅 **Schedule**: (UTC)
- Branch creation
- Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM (`* 0-3 * * *`)
- Automerge
- Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM (`* 0-3 * * *`)
🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.
♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.
🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.
---
- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box
---
This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate).
<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiI0My4xMDQuNCIsInVwZGF0ZWRJblZlciI6IjQzLjEwNC40IiwidGFyZ2V0QnJhbmNoIjoiZm9yZ2VqbyIsImxhYmVscyI6WyJkZXBlbmRlbmN5LXVwZ3JhZGUiLCJ0ZXN0L25vdC1uZWVkZWQiXX0=-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12084
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <bot@kriese.eu>
Co-committed-by: Renovate Bot <bot@kriese.eu>
If Forgejo encounters an Actions workflow with unknown jobs in a needs definition, Forgejo will ignore those and run the job anyway. That is bad. For example, releases could be published without any testing because the name of the testing job was misspelt.
Workflow that demonstrates the problem:
```yaml
on:
push:
workflow_dispatch:
jobs:
build:
runs-on: debian
steps:
- run: |
echo "OK"
test:
runs-on: debian
needs: [does-not-exist]
steps:
- run: |
echo "OK"
```
Now, before a workflow is run, Forgejo will check whether all jobs referenced in `needs` exist. If any of them does not, it raises a pre-execution error which fails the workflow immediately. It also displays an appropriate error to the user, for example:
```
Workflow was not executed due to an error that blocked the execution attempt.
Job with ID test references unknown jobs in `needs`: does-not-exist.
```
Futhermore, workflows with pre-execution errors can no longer be rerun, which was previously possible.
Original issue: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/977.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12046
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Followup of !11115, it was not checked against the the modernizer linter.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12065
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes#6438
When a protected branch requires signed commits and no signing key is available, fast-forward-only merges should still be allowed because they do not create a new commit.
This patch applies signing checks by merge behaviour/style instead of one global gate:
- pass `mergeStyle` through `CheckPullMergeable(...)` in web/API/automerge paths
- require signing for commit-creating styles (`merge`, `rebase`, `rebase-merge`, `squash`)
- bypass signing precheck only for `fast-forward-only`
- align merge UI options with backend behaviour so signing-dependent styles are unavailable when signing cannot happen
- add Go unit tests for merge-style signing requirements
- add frontend unit coverage for the no-allowed-merge-styles guard
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11403
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
Co-committed-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
Fixes#9282
Adds a new admin panel category for federation related administration.
Includes views for:
- Instance Federation Configuration
- List of Federation Hosts
- (Per-Instance) List of Federated Users
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11115
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
Co-committed-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
Display the version of Forgejo Runner on the runner's detail page. That is useful for diagnostics.
Originally, the version was displayed on the overview page, but removed in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11516 due to space constraints. It should have been moved to the details page, but that never happened.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12059
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
This reverts commit 79ed45d39a.
Testing has shown that it breaks Docker 26 which is the version included in Debian Trixie.
It was originally introduced with https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11678.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12058
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Since https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11750, the attempt number of a Forgejo Actions job is set eagerly. When an job is ultimately not run, for example, because its `needs` weren't satisfied, it leads to discontinuous attempt numbers of completed attempts that the component for viewing action logs could not handle. This has been rectified by actually determining the number of the last attempt.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11994.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12021
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6163
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3343
The merge base doctor check & fix was broken and could introduce irreversible "fixes" to wrong merge bases for PRs using the `fast-forward` and `rebase-and-merge` strategies.
The mergebase fix was originally introduced in a migration [0] to fix an existing issue [1] in the merge code in 2020.
Later added as a doctor command without explanation [2].
We decided to remove this check, as there is no apparent reason for it to still be necessary or any PR merge base state being out of sync with the current implementation.
It does more harm to keep the code in and there is no way to fix `fast-forward` and `rebase-and-merge` PRs, due to their merge implementation.
`fast-forward`: The git state inherently cannot reconstruct a merge base in this scenario by design.
`rebase-and-merge`: Is rebased on a temporary repository clone and thus might receive a different merge base, depending on how far the target branch is ahead.
[0]: 4a2b76d9c8
[1]: 4a2b76d9c8
[2]: d26885e2bf (diff-84d6d60112991392d6ba2cae4cd919fb3ee8afb8)
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12023
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Saibotk <git@saibotk.de>
Co-committed-by: Saibotk <git@saibotk.de>
When using Forgejo's `enable-openid-connect: true`, a URL is generated into the actions under `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` that can be used to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources authenticated as the action executing in this server on this repo. However, the endpoint of that url (`.../idtoken`) had unintentionally missed a `return` on an internal server error, and was missing a check that the action actually had `enable-openid-connect: true` on it. As a result, it was possible to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources from an action that wasn't expected to be generating JWTs.
In terms of real-world vulnerability, the most likely risk is that the JWT could be generated from a forked pull request. By not using the `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` and instead going directly to the `.../idtoken` endpoint, and parsing a generated JWT response that will be mixed with an error response, it's possible to retrieve a JWT in a forked pull request. It would require a slight misconfiguration on a third-party system to allow that JWT access, but it's a plausible risk.
As this is a feature in Forgejo 15 that hasn't been released, it will be fixed in-public.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Feature is not yet released.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12030
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11880.
Adding `hx-on::after-settle="this.querySelector('button').focus()"` restores focus after the content has been swapped and the DOM has been setled. I tried `hx-on::after-swap` first since it's mentioned more often in https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/issues/1869, but it didn't work.
The demo attached in `focus.mp4` runs through a series of repeated clicks on both buttons. You can hear the screen reader announce the button's new label when focus is restored.
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11932
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
Co-committed-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116
To understand the impact of this you really need to listen to the before and after screen recordings attached. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116 is a really great bug report, and I was surprised by how disorienting this actually was when testing manually compared to my expectation after reading the issue. This is an impactful improvement!
This is my first time adding new translation strings. Excited to learn more about that if I've guessed wrong about how to do it.
To summarise, what we're doing here is as follows.
1. Address the core issue by changing the existing `<th>` elements to `<td>` so that screen readers stop semantically associating them with each row and reading them out for every table cell.
2. Replace them with real `<th>` elements that communicate the true semantic role of each column.
3. Add a `<caption>`. This serves a dual purpose: it gives the table an accessible name which improves the navigability of the page, and it gives us a place to explain to the user that the first row of the table is a little bit different because it's the latest commit rather than a file in the repo.
4. Visually hide the new caption and headings so that only screen reader users get them.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for JavaScript changes
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11846
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
Co-committed-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se>
